Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Lugar, along with Representatives Boucher and Pence in the House of Representatives, in introducing the Free Flow of Information Act. This bill would protect journalists from being forced to reveal their confidential sources, not as an end in itself, but as a means to a well-informed public. I applaud the tireless efforts of the senior Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, in once again bringing this important issue to the attention of Congress and indeed the nation.

I hardly have to read the litany of grave wrongs that have been exposed because journalists called the powerful to account. And I don't have to remind you how many of those exposures relied on confidential sources. Without confidential sources, would we still be ignorant about abuse of power in the Watergate era? Without confidential sources, would Enron still be profiting from fraud? How long would torture at Abu Ghraib have persisted, if proof hadn't been provided to the press?

The free flow of information provides the American people its most meaningful check on abuses such as those. Thomas Jefferson said it best: ``If I had to make a choice, to choose the government without the press or to have the press but without the government, I will select the latter without hesitation.'' Jefferson clearly understood that a free Government cannot possibly last without a free press.

But today, we find this cornerstone of self-government facing a new threat. This threat has not come from the dictates of a dangerous government, but from the best of intentions. In a spate of recent cases, prosecutors have used subpoenas, fines, and jail time to compel journalists to reveal their anonymous sources. Judith Miller of The New York Times was jailed for 85 days for refusing to reveal a source. Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were found in contempt of court for refusing to identify sources and hand over material related to the BALCO steroids investigation. A Rhode Island journalist was sentenced to home arrest on similar charges. Last year alone, a total of some two dozen reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about confidential sources. They were all journalists prosecuted only for the offense of journalism.

The impact of these subpoenas on the broader issue of freedom of information is undeniable. Last summer, for instance, the editor-in- chief of Time magazine testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is what he said about the fallout from the Justice Department's efforts to obtain confidential information from a Time reporter: ``Valuable sources have insisted that they no longer trusted the magazine and that they would no longer cooperate on stories. The chilling effect is obvious.''

The chilling effect is obvious. Experience has shown us that the most effective constraint on free speech need not be blatant censorship: A few cases like Ms. Miller's and the San Francisco Chronicle's, and news will begin censoring itself. We can only speculate as to how many editors and publishers put the brakes on a story for fear that it could land one of their reporters in a spider web of subpoenas, charges of contempt, and prison. When we minimize the impact of confidential sources, serious journalism is crippled. We will find our papers full of stories more and more palatable to the powerful and secretive. No one argues that that is the intention of those prosecuting these cases; but few deny that it could, in time, be their effect.

When journalists are hauled into court and threatened with imprisonment if they don't divulge their sources, we are entering dangerous territory for a democracy. The information we need to remain sovereign will be degraded; the public's right to know will be threatened; and I suggest to you that the liberties we hold dear will be threatened as well.

That is exactly why we need a Federal reporter shield. Forty-nine States and the District of Columbia have already recognized that need by enacting similar protection on the state level either through legislation or court decisions; the Free Flow of Information Act simply extends that widely recognized protection to the Federal courts.

The new version of this bill expands coverage in two significant ways. First, it will not only protect the information journalists obtain under the promise of confidentiality; it will also cover the ``work product'' of journalists as well, whether or not it was subject to that promise. And second, it no longer limits protection to mainstream reporters; the new version also shields any person ``engaged in journalism.'' In today's expansive media environment, it would be unacceptable to deny the shield to our citizen-journalists.

Of course, the reporter shield is not absolute. The public's need to know must be weighed against other goods, and that is why the bill establishes a balancing test that takes into account ``both the public interest in compelling disclosure and the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.'' Specifically, the bill will not protect anonymity when disclosure of a source would prevent imminent harm to national security, imminent death or bodily harm, or the release of personal or health related information. In other words, we are balancing our right to know with our need for security, whether physical or economic. Secrecy is as necessary in extreme circumstances as it is dangerous on the whole.

It is on the idea of balance that I would like to conclude. A prosecution, whatever its individual merits, sacrifices something higher when it turns on reporters; and so those merits must be balanced against the broader harms such a prosecution can work. If a free press inexorably creates a free government, as Jefferson suggested, then the agents of that free government, prosecutors included, owe a high debt to journalism. When prosecutors threaten journalism, they have begun to renege on that debt. So I am proud to support this valuable bill, a step toward rebalancing the pursuit of justice and the diffusion of truth.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Lugar, along with Representatives Boucher and Pence in the House of Representatives, in introducing the Free Flow of Information Act. This bill would protect journalists from being forced to reveal their confidential sources, not as an end in itself, but as a means to a well-informed public. I applaud the tireless efforts of the senior Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, in once again bringing this important issue to the attention of Congress and indeed the nation.

I hardly have to read the litany of grave wrongs that have been exposed because journalists called the powerful to account. And I don't have to remind you how many of those exposures relied on confidential sources. Without confidential sources, would we still be ignorant about abuse of power in the Watergate era? Without confidential sources, would Enron still be profiting from fraud? How long would torture at Abu Ghraib have persisted, if proof hadn't been provided to the press?

The free flow of information provides the American people its most meaningful check on abuses such as those. Thomas Jefferson said it best: ``If I had to make a choice, to choose the government without the press or to have the press but without the government, I will select the latter without hesitation.'' Jefferson clearly understood that a free Government cannot possibly last without a free press.

But today, we find this cornerstone of self-government facing a new threat. This threat has not come from the dictates of a dangerous government, but from the best of intentions. In a spate of recent cases, prosecutors have used subpoenas, fines, and jail time to compel journalists to reveal their anonymous sources. Judith Miller of The New York Times was jailed for 85 days for refusing to reveal a source. Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were found in contempt of court for refusing to identify sources and hand over material related to the BALCO steroids investigation. A Rhode Island journalist was sentenced to home arrest on similar charges. Last year alone, a total of some two dozen reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about confidential sources. They were all journalists prosecuted only for the offense of journalism.

The impact of these subpoenas on the broader issue of freedom of information is undeniable. Last summer, for instance, the editor-in- chief of Time magazine testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is what he said about the fallout from the Justice Department's efforts to obtain confidential information from a Time reporter: ``Valuable sources have insisted that they no longer trusted the magazine and that they would no longer cooperate on stories. The chilling effect is obvious.''

The chilling effect is obvious. Experience has shown us that the most effective constraint on free speech need not be blatant censorship: A few cases like Ms. Miller's and the San Francisco Chronicle's, and news will begin censoring itself. We can only speculate as to how many editors and publishers put the brakes on a story for fear that it could land one of their reporters in a spider web of subpoenas, charges of contempt, and prison. When we minimize the impact of confidential sources, serious journalism is crippled. We will find our papers full of stories more and more palatable to the powerful and secretive. No one argues that that is the intention of those prosecuting these cases; but few deny that it could, in time, be their effect.

When journalists are hauled into court and threatened with imprisonment if they don't divulge their sources, we are entering dangerous territory for a democracy. The information we need to remain sovereign will be degraded; the public's right to know will be threatened; and I suggest to you that the liberties we hold dear will be threatened as well.

That is exactly why we need a Federal reporter shield. Forty-nine States and the District of Columbia have already recognized that need by enacting similar protection on the state level either through legislation or court decisions; the Free Flow of Information Act simply extends that widely recognized protection to the Federal courts.

The new version of this bill expands coverage in two significant ways. First, it will not only protect the information journalists obtain under the promise of confidentiality; it will also cover the ``work product'' of journalists as well, whether or not it was subject to that promise. And second, it no longer limits protection to mainstream reporters; the new version also shields any person ``engaged in journalism.'' In today's expansive media environment, it would be unacceptable to deny the shield to our citizen-journalists.

Of course, the reporter shield is not absolute. The public's need to know must be weighed against other goods, and that is why the bill establishes a balancing test that takes into account ``both the public interest in compelling disclosure and the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.'' Specifically, the bill will not protect anonymity when disclosure of a source would prevent imminent harm to national security, imminent death or bodily harm, or the release of personal or health related information. In other words, we are balancing our right to know with our need for security, whether physical or economic. Secrecy is as necessary in extreme circumstances as it is dangerous on the whole.

It is on the idea of balance that I would like to conclude. A prosecution, whatever its individual merits, sacrifices something higher when it turns on reporters; and so those merits must be balanced against the broader harms such a prosecution can work. If a free press inexorably creates a free government, as Jefferson suggested, then the agents of that free government, prosecutors included, owe a high debt to journalism. When prosecutors threaten journalism, they have begun to renege on that debt. So I am proud to support this valuable bill, a step toward rebalancing the pursuit of justice and the diffusion of truth.

Mr. President, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have performed valiantly in Iraq in the face of great adversity. The costs of this war have been great to them and our Nation. Over 3,300 brave American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq over 30 from my own State of Connecticut.

To date, over $500 billion has been approved by Congress for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, not including the $95.5 billion included in the conference agreement being debated today or the $141.7 billion in additional funding already requested by the administration for fiscal year 2008.

In addition, because of the war, our forces have been drained of critical combat gear and training time, adding another element to the costs of this war--our military's combat readiness. Two-thirds of the Army in the United States and 88 percent of our National Guard are reporting 'not ready' for duty, largely due to equipment and training shortfalls.

Now, as we have entered the fifth year of the Iraq war, it is long past time for a course correction. Rather than continue abetting the administration's efforts to escalate our entanglement in Iraq's civil war, it is time for Congress to assert itself and heed the American people's call for change.

The conference report before us today takes the first steps toward that change. While I wish it would have included stronger language to immediately begin withdrawing combat troops from Iraq and limiting the mission there to counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi troops and force protection for remaining U.S. personnel, it does for the first time set some new goals for this administration and the Iraqi Government that will mandate a change of course. For the first time it demands real accountability from the President to take action to restore our military's readiness which has been hollowed out as a result of his policies. And this bill finally provides critical resources for combat gear and protective equipment that the Bush- Cheney-Rumsfeld administration has consistently shortchanged in their budget proposals.

Regrettably, as my colleagues know, the President has already said that he will refuse to sign this legislation into law. He has announced his intention to veto this bill because after 4 years of a disastrous war policy, escalating combat deaths, and growing instability in the region, he insists that his is the only way. It is disheartening that President Bush does not see or will not admit that his policy in Iraq is a failure.

In plowing ahead on the current course in Iraq, the President has rejected the advice of experts from across the political spectrum, from the Baker-Hamilton Report, and from members of Congress, all of whom have urged him to change the course in Iraq, to diminish our military footprint there, and to start a surge of diplomacy in the region. Like all my colleagues, I want to see success in Iraq. I wish that the President's policies were working. I wish that U.S. combat forces were able to restore security to Baghdad and to other parts of Iraq. I wish that the President had not mismanaged this war from day one. I wish that we had deployed enough troops on the ground to secure the peace at the outset. I wish that Secretary Rumsfeld hadn't run the Coalition Provisional Authority like a staffing agency for Republican political operatives, displacing countless U.S. Foreign Service professionals in the beginning of the war. I wish we hadn't disbanded the Iraqi Army and that we hadn't allowed looting. And I wish that our surge of 30,000 more men and women in uniform into Iraq could be successful in stabilizing that country.

But now is not the time for wishful thinking. Now is the time to address the real facts on the ground. This conflict cannot be resolved by increased military action. It requires a coherent, broad-based strategy to promote the political reconciliation necessary to secure the future for Iraq.

The bill before us begins that process. If the President determines that the Iraqis are not making progress on key political, security, and economic benchmarks, then, under this legislation, the redeployment of American troops would begin this summer. If, on the other hand, the President determines that the Iraqis are complying with the benchmarks set forth in the legislation, then the redeployment of American forces would begin later in the fall of 2007. These reasonable and responsible timetables and benchmarks will force the President to change his strategy and will incentivize the Iraqi Government to take difficult but necessary steps toward reconciliation, power sharing, and security.

This bill also allows for a limited ongoing presence of U.S. forces in Iraq for the specific purposes of training and equipping reliable Iraqi security forces, carrying out counterterrorism operations within Iraq, and providing force protection, because we understand that these vital components will be necessary to ensure a stable and secure Iraq even after our combat troops have been redeployed. Iraqis will continue to need some limited American assistance, and it is in our and Iraq's national interests for that limited support to continue.

Exactly 1 day after President Bush disingenuously charged the Democratic Congress for causing what he called ``unacceptable'' delays in troops returning home, Secretary Gates announced that he was immediately extending the tour lengths of those units sent to Iraq to 15 months--3 months longer than before. In addition, 13,000 National Guard troops from Arkansas, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Ohio, as well as other States, were recently told to prepare to be deployed to Iraq.

As a result of 4 years of war in Iraq, our Army has been stretched to its breaking point.

It is time to say, ``enough is enough.'' And with this supplemental bill, Congress is taking a big step in that direction. This bill holds the President directly responsible for units being deployed who are not ``fully mission capable'', by requiring him to waive requirements that mandate that units fully restock their depleted equipment inventories and restore their mission readiness prior to deployment. It includes funding for critical equipment, including mine-resistant, ambush- protection vehicles which would dramatically lower the number of injuries and casualties sustained by our troops. And it includes billions of dollars for health care for our wounded veterans, many of

whom return home with debilitating and life-altering injuries. They have sacrificed everything for this Nation, and at the very least we owe them the best health care available.

Sadly, there is no magic formula for fixing the myriad problems in Iraq, as the Baker-Hamilton Commission rightly pointed out. But it is critical that Iraqis make progress on reconciliation and security and that the Government improves the living conditions of its citizens. Iraq's neighbors and regional leaders must also play a role in finding such a solution. The United States and Iraq's neighbors all have long- term interests in the region, and a broken Iraq does not advance those interests.

With this supplemental bill, Congress is offering the President an opportunity to change our course in Iraq, to listen and respond to the will of the American people, to support the men and women sacrificing their lives there, and to provide for a responsible change in strategy in Iraq.

It is also vital that we make America more resilient here at home. This bill begins to do just that, in providing $325 million to protect the millions of Americans who ride public transportation each day.

Our Nation's public transit systems are inadequately prepared to minimize the threat and impact of potential terrorist attacks. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has invested nearly $24 billion in aviation security--protecting the 1.8 million people who fly on an average day. At the same time, our National Government has invested only $386 million, before the 110th Congress began, in transit security to protect the 14 million people who ride transit on an average workday. Put another way, since 2001, our Nation has spent over $7.50 per passenger on aviation security but less than one penny per transit rider on transit security. I am not suggesting that we ought to be investing equally, but clearly this is not the appropriate balance.

As chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, I have made improving our national security a top priority. The very first hearing that I held as chairman focused on increasing the security of our Nation's 14 million daily transit passengers. The very first legislation that the committee considered during my chairmanship was the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which was reported by the Banking Committee unanimously on February 8. The legislation authorizes the distribution of $3.5 billion in security funds, over the next 3 fiscal years, on the basis of risk directly to transit agencies.

The Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was included as title XV of the 9/11 bill, which the Senate passed on March 13. Senator Shelby and I worked with Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran to include language in the legislation to allow for such sums as necessary to be appropriated in this fiscal year to address the critical needs of our Nation's transit systems. The $325 million included in this appropriations act is a significant investment toward our goal of better securing our Nation's rail and transit systems. This investment builds on the $175 million that was included in the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution. I once again thank all of the members of the Banking and Appropriations Committees who have worked so hard to advance us to where we are today.

This bill also continues congressional efforts to help the citizens of Mississippi and Louisiana rebuild their lives after the catastrophic effects of Hurricane Katrina by including more than $1.3 billion to fund flood and storm damage reduction projects in affected areas.

Finally, I want to take a few brief moments to discuss the minimum wage increase provision included in this bill. It has been nearly 10 years since millions of hard-working men and women have seen their wages go up. During that time, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of families being paid the minimum wage. In fact, the real value of the minimum wage has declined $4 below what it was nearly 40 years ago, in 1968. It is currently at its lowest inflation-adjusted level in more than 50 years. During the past 10 years, while the minimum wage remained unchanged, the cost of housing, food, health care, education, transportation, and energy has increased.

We cannot reduce poverty if we don't tackle raising the minimum wage. It is simply outrageous that so many Americans live in poverty, and it is long overdue that we take action to reduce the inexcusable and unconscionably high levels of poverty in this country. The language of the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which is included in this bill, will provide a three-step increase in wages over 26 months from the current level of $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. This additional $4,400 per year would allow a low-income family of three to buy 8 months of rent, 15 months of groceries, 19 months of utilities, 20 months of childcare, or more than 24 months of health insurance.

I urge the President to seize this opportunity to make America and Iraq stronger and safer. I sincerely hope he will reconsider his decision to veto this bill when it arrives on his desk. Such a veto would be an affirmation of the status quo in America, a status which this Nation can simply no longer afford.

Mr. President, Saturday, April 28, is Workers Memorial Day. Tomorrow, working men and women around the world will gather to remember their millions of brothers and sisters who have been injured or killed on the job. I join them in their grief-and in their determination to secure a safer future.

Work-related accidents kill Americans with a regularity that calls us to question the very word ``accident.'' Fifteen deaths every day, and more than 11,000 injuries: They are grimly predictable and often preventable.

Today is for men like Eleazar Torres-Gomez, a laundry worker who was dragged by a conveyor belt into a 300-degree industrial dryer, where he burned to death. Sadness at his death is matched by an equal anger- especially when we learn that, in the two years preceding it, his employer was cited more than 170 times for unsafe, illegal working conditions. We remember Eleazar today.

Today is for the 12 miners killed last year in Sago, West Virginia, when an explosion trapped them underground for two days. Only a few years before, the Mine Safety and Health Administration struck down 17 new safety rules for trapped miners--rules that might have saved the miners in Sago. We remember them today.

Today is for the 28 union construction workers killed in Connecticut, 20 years ago this month, when the apartment towers they were building collapsed with a roar, within seconds, into ruined concrete and steel. In the wake of their deaths, we outlawed the dangerous lift-slab construction method that led to the collapse. But we can never replace those lives; today we remember them, too.

How can we honor them? I know this much: Words alone would be an insult. The men and women we remember this Saturday risked their lives so we could lie down and wake up in health and safety and comfort, and merely speaking our gratitude would be emptier than doing nothing. We owe them action.

We owe them action equal to the historic Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), which was passed 37 years ago tomorrow and has saved an estimated 350,000 lives. We need to cover more workers--because more than 8.5 million are not protected by OSHA. We need more resources for inspection and enforcement--because, at the current rate, federal inspectors are only able to examine workplaces, on average, once every 133 years. We need stiffer penalties for employers who knowingly put their workers' lives at risk--because employers like those who compromised Mr. Torres-Gomez's life now face a maximum penalty of a simple misdemeanor.

And we need the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to take its work more seriously--because, according to a New York Times report released this week, ``the agency has killed dozens of existing and proposed regulations and delayed adopting others.''

Taking these vital steps for workers adds up to more than increased resources or stronger oversight--ultimately, it translates to respect. We owe their memories nothing less. Five thousand seven hundred workers were killed on the job last year, and our economic prosperity is built on their flesh and blood.

More than half a century ago, George Orwell remarked on the disregard that so often greets manual labor: ``It keeps us alive, and we are oblivious of its existence. . . . We are capable of forgetting it as we forget the blood in our veins.''

Today we pledge ourselves as the exception to that rule. And if we mean our words, we will be the exception tomorrow, and the day after that. For America's working men and women deserve nothing less than our eternal gratitude and diligence in preventing future workplace tragedies.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the College Saver's Credit Act, a bill designed to open the dream of higher education to many more Americans.

Few choices in life have the economic consequence as the decision to enter college. Compare college-educated workers to their high-school- educated peers: those with a college diploma will earn $1 million more over

the course of a lifetime than their peers without one. That million- dollar difference lays bare the power in college access.

And yet there are literally hundreds of thousands of young men and women who want to choose a college education, and cannot. These young men and women are prepared to enter into our college-educated middle class--prepared in intellect, prepared in maturity, prepared in ambition--and are shut out by the cost of tuition.

This year, 400,000 high school seniors whose families have low or moderate incomes will be priced out of college. Of those, nearly 200,000 will never attend college at all. They will lose their chance at higher education, and as a consequence, they will face almost twice the odds of unemployment.

And unless we take action, the number of excluded Americans is only likely to increase. Over the past 10 years, the cost of attending a 4- year public college has increased by more than $2,800, or 96 percent, and the cost of attending a four-year private college has increased by more than $9,000, or 71 percent. These costs continue to rise today.

We must take steps to break down these barriers to access, starting by making it easier for families to save for higher education. The refundable College Saver's Credit created by this act would do just that--even as it boosts personal and national savings, at a time when these rates are setting new lows. It would provide a powerful complement to the other forms of financial aid available to students, which, I might add, we should also continue to work to strengthen.

The College Saver's Credit would be available to low- and moderate- income taxpayers who save in Section 529 college savings plans: specifically, to joint filers making up to $60,000, heads of households making up to $45,000, and all other taxpayers making up to $30,000, with all numbers indexed for inflation. In other words, the credit is designed to provide the greatest benefit to those who have the greatest difficulty affording college.

Taxpayers could claim a 50 percent credit for Section 529 plan contributions, up to a maximum credit of $2,000. The College Saver's Credit would be fully refundable--meaning that even taxpayers who do not make enough money to have a high tax liability would be eligible to claim the credit's full value--provided that the refunded amount is put towards qualified higher educational expenses. Any refund would be deposited directly and automatically into the taxpayer's or taxpayer's beneficiary's designated 529 college savings plan, taking advantage of the IRS's new ``split refund'' option. Funds attributable to refunds from the College Saver's Credit could accumulate earnings tax-free (like the rest of the taxpayer's savings in a 529 plan), but may only be distributed to pay college costs--otherwise, they must be returned to the Treasury.

In his budget this year, President Bush proposed expanding the Saver's Credit for retirement savings to section 529 college savings plans. Establishing the refundable College Saver's Credit would accomplish this goal in a way that provides the greatest value to those Americans who need it most.

And in doing that, this bill accomplishes two worthy, and linked, goals: It encourages Americans to plan and prepare for the future; and it truly widens the doors to college.

Savings and education: They are pillars of our prosperity--prosperity that will grow even as it is shared more widely.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2007. Food allergies are an increasing food safety and public health concern in this country, especially among young children. I know firsthand just how frightening food allergies can be in a young person's life. My own family has been personally touched by this troubling condition and we continue to struggle with it each and every day. Sadly, there is no cure for food allergies.

In the past 5 years, the number of Americans with food allergies has nearly doubled from 6 million to almost 12 million. While food allergies were at one time considered relatively infrequent, today they rank 3rd among common chronic diseases in children under 18 years of age. Peanuts are among several allergenic foods that can produce life threatening allergic reactions in susceptible children. Peanut allergies have doubled among school age children from 1997-2002.

Clearly, food allergies are of great concern for school age children nationwide, and yet, there are no federal guidelines concerning the management of life threatening food allergies in our Nation's schools.

I have heard from parents, teachers and school administrators that students with severe food allergies often face inconsistent food allergy management approaches when they change schools. Too often, families are not aware of the food allergy policy at their children's school, or the policy is vastly different from the one they knew at their previous school, and they are left wondering whether their child is safe.

Recently, Connecticut became the first State to enact school-based guidelines concerning food allergies and the prevention of life threatening incidents in schools. I am very proud of these efforts, and I know that the parents of children who suffer from food allergies in Connecticut have confidence that their children are safe throughout the school day. States such as Massachusetts and Tennessee have enacted similar guidelines and Vermont, New Jersey, Arizona, Michigan and New York have either passed or have pending legislation to enact statewide guidelines. But too many States across the country have food allergy management guidelines that are inconsistent from one school district to the next. The result is a patchwork of guidelines that not only may vary from state to state, but also from school district to school district.

In my view, this lack of consistency underscores the need for enactment of uniform Federal policies that school districts can choose to adopt and implement. For this reason, I am introducing the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2007 today to address the growing need for uniform and consistent school-based food allergy management policy. The bill I am introducing today closely mirrors legislation I introduced last Congress with former Senator Frist. I thank him for his past leadership and commitment to this important legislation.

The legislation does two things. First, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to develop and make available voluntary food allergy management guidelines for preventing exposure to food allergens and assuring a prompt response when a student suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction. The guidelines developed by the Secretary are voluntary, not mandatory. Under the legislation, each school district across the country can voluntarily choose to implement these guidelines. The intent of the legislation is not to mandate individual school policy, but rather to provide for consistency of policies relating to school-based food allergy management by providing schools with consistent guidelines at the Federal level.

Second, the bill provides for incentive grants to school districts to assist them with adoption and implementation of the federal government's allergy management guidelines in all K-12 public schools.

I would like to recognize the leadership of Congresswoman Nita Lowey who is introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. She has been a longstanding champion for children and for awareness of the devastating impact of food allergies. I also wish to acknowledge and offer my sincere appreciation to the members of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network for their commitment to this legislation and for raising public awareness, providing advocacy, and advancing research on behalf of all individuals who suffer from food allergies.

This legislation is supported by the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from these organizations be printed in the Record.

I hope that my colleagues in the Senate and in the House will consider and pass this important legislation before the end of the year so that the Department of Health and Human Services can begin work on developing national guidelines as soon as possible. Schoolchildren across the country deserve nothing less than a safe and healthy learning environment.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the College Saver's Credit Act, a bill designed to open the dream of higher education to many more Americans.

Few choices in life have the economic consequence as the decision to enter college. Compare college-educated workers to their high-school- educated peers: those with a college diploma will earn $1 million more over

the course of a lifetime than their peers without one. That million- dollar difference lays bare the power in college access.

And yet there are literally hundreds of thousands of young men and women who want to choose a college education, and cannot. These young men and women are prepared to enter into our college-educated middle class--prepared in intellect, prepared in maturity, prepared in ambition--and are shut out by the cost of tuition.

This year, 400,000 high school seniors whose families have low or moderate incomes will be priced out of college. Of those, nearly 200,000 will never attend college at all. They will lose their chance at higher education, and as a consequence, they will face almost twice the odds of unemployment.

And unless we take action, the number of excluded Americans is only likely to increase. Over the past 10 years, the cost of attending a 4- year public college has increased by more than $2,800, or 96 percent, and the cost of attending a four-year private college has increased by more than $9,000, or 71 percent. These costs continue to rise today.

We must take steps to break down these barriers to access, starting by making it easier for families to save for higher education. The refundable College Saver's Credit created by this act would do just that--even as it boosts personal and national savings, at a time when these rates are setting new lows. It would provide a powerful complement to the other forms of financial aid available to students, which, I might add, we should also continue to work to strengthen.

The College Saver's Credit would be available to low- and moderate- income taxpayers who save in Section 529 college savings plans: specifically, to joint filers making up to $60,000, heads of households making up to $45,000, and all other taxpayers making up to $30,000, with all numbers indexed for inflation. In other words, the credit is designed to provide the greatest benefit to those who have the greatest difficulty affording college.

Taxpayers could claim a 50 percent credit for Section 529 plan contributions, up to a maximum credit of $2,000. The College Saver's Credit would be fully refundable--meaning that even taxpayers who do not make enough money to have a high tax liability would be eligible to claim the credit's full value--provided that the refunded amount is put towards qualified higher educational expenses. Any refund would be deposited directly and automatically into the taxpayer's or taxpayer's beneficiary's designated 529 college savings plan, taking advantage of the IRS's new ``split refund'' option. Funds attributable to refunds from the College Saver's Credit could accumulate earnings tax-free (like the rest of the taxpayer's savings in a 529 plan), but may only be distributed to pay college costs--otherwise, they must be returned to the Treasury.

In his budget this year, President Bush proposed expanding the Saver's Credit for retirement savings to section 529 college savings plans. Establishing the refundable College Saver's Credit would accomplish this goal in a way that provides the greatest value to those Americans who need it most.

And in doing that, this bill accomplishes two worthy, and linked, goals: It encourages Americans to plan and prepare for the future; and it truly widens the doors to college.

Savings and education: They are pillars of our prosperity--prosperity that will grow even as it is shared more widely.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2007. Food allergies are an increasing food safety and public health concern in this country, especially among young children. I know firsthand just how frightening food allergies can be in a young person's life. My own family has been personally touched by this troubling condition and we continue to struggle with it each and every day. Sadly, there is no cure for food allergies.

In the past 5 years, the number of Americans with food allergies has nearly doubled from 6 million to almost 12 million. While food allergies were at one time considered relatively infrequent, today they rank 3rd among common chronic diseases in children under 18 years of age. Peanuts are among several allergenic foods that can produce life threatening allergic reactions in susceptible children. Peanut allergies have doubled among school age children from 1997-2002.

Clearly, food allergies are of great concern for school age children nationwide, and yet, there are no federal guidelines concerning the management of life threatening food allergies in our Nation's schools.

I have heard from parents, teachers and school administrators that students with severe food allergies often face inconsistent food allergy management approaches when they change schools. Too often, families are not aware of the food allergy policy at their children's school, or the policy is vastly different from the one they knew at their previous school, and they are left wondering whether their child is safe.

Recently, Connecticut became the first State to enact school-based guidelines concerning food allergies and the prevention of life threatening incidents in schools. I am very proud of these efforts, and I know that the parents of children who suffer from food allergies in Connecticut have confidence that their children are safe throughout the school day. States such as Massachusetts and Tennessee have enacted similar guidelines and Vermont, New Jersey, Arizona, Michigan and New York have either passed or have pending legislation to enact statewide guidelines. But too many States across the country have food allergy management guidelines that are inconsistent from one school district to the next. The result is a patchwork of guidelines that not only may vary from state to state, but also from school district to school district.

In my view, this lack of consistency underscores the need for enactment of uniform Federal policies that school districts can choose to adopt and implement. For this reason, I am introducing the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2007 today to address the growing need for uniform and consistent school-based food allergy management policy. The bill I am introducing today closely mirrors legislation I introduced last Congress with former Senator Frist. I thank him for his past leadership and commitment to this important legislation.

The legislation does two things. First, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to develop and make available voluntary food allergy management guidelines for preventing exposure to food allergens and assuring a prompt response when a student suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction. The guidelines developed by the Secretary are voluntary, not mandatory. Under the legislation, each school district across the country can voluntarily choose to implement these guidelines. The intent of the legislation is not to mandate individual school policy, but rather to provide for consistency of policies relating to school-based food allergy management by providing schools with consistent guidelines at the Federal level.

Second, the bill provides for incentive grants to school districts to assist them with adoption and implementation of the federal government's allergy management guidelines in all K-12 public schools.

I would like to recognize the leadership of Congresswoman Nita Lowey who is introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. She has been a longstanding champion for children and for awareness of the devastating impact of food allergies. I also wish to acknowledge and offer my sincere appreciation to the members of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network for their commitment to this legislation and for raising public awareness, providing advocacy, and advancing research on behalf of all individuals who suffer from food allergies.

This legislation is supported by the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from these organizations be printed in the Record.

I hope that my colleagues in the Senate and in the House will consider and pass this important legislation before the end of the year so that the Department of Health and Human Services can begin work on developing national guidelines as soon as possible. Schoolchildren across the country deserve nothing less than a safe and healthy learning environment.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank my colleague for his consideration.

For those of us who remember the days of Russell Long talking about the employee stock option plans, we all were lectured considerably during our tenure here with Russell Long, who was a strong advocate of the idea of employees being able to have an invested ownership in companies.

I applaud my colleague from Vermont for this idea. It is one that certainly deserves consideration. I have told my colleague from Vermont I will be happy to either conduct the hearing myself or have an appropriate subcommittee conduct it, and be involved with it, as well as the Banking Committee to look at this.

The jurisdiction may also be in the Finance Committee. I know Senator Baucus has an interest in this issue as well, so I want to be careful about stepping on the toes of another committee that may have some piece of this as well as the Banking Committee. But it is an economic development issue, and I am sure, between Senator Baucus and myself, we can conduct a hearing that will complement both committees' jurisdictions.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his observation. I see my friend from Alabama is in the Chamber, the former chairman of the committee, my ranking member, who cares about this issue as well. I know of his interest in the subject matter.

So we will move forward on this issue in a timely fashion to see if we can have a good hearing and develop further interest in this idea, which I think has great merit. I thank the Senator for raising it.

Mr. President, I wish to express my support for ensuring the ongoing competitiveness of U.S. capital markets, our economy and American workers. I have served on the Banking Committee since my first day in the Senate 26 years ago. During my tenure on the committee, and now as its chairman, preserving and strengthening America's preeminent position as the world's leading financial center has been among my primary objectives.

Based on that experience, I would like to share what I believe are three important considerations that should guide us in any discussion of how to make America's capital markets more competitive.

First, we must remain mindful that our markets remain the largest, most liquid, and most transparent on the planet.

Second, the current and continued success of those markets depends on the presence of effective, efficient legal rules that protect investors; as such, we should resist the temptation to engage in a regulatory race to the bottom as a rationale to stay on top. Members of the Senate resisted that temptation yesterday when they voted, overwhelmingly, to defeat an amendment that would have significantly weakened a critical investor protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. I want to thank the sponsors of this amendment, Senator Schumer and Senator Crapo, for their vote opposing yesterday's amendment. In doing so, they affirmed their support for an efficient and effective regulatory structure and ongoing efforts at the Securities and Exchange Commission to lower the cost of compliance for small businesses.

Third the success of our markets also depends on our Nation's ability to educate, train, and recruit the kind of talented and driven people who can compete and win in the global economy.

We should do all we can to promote the ongoing competitiveness of America's capital markets. Our Nation's ability to strengthen security, create opportunity, and expand prosperity for every citizen depends in large part on the success of our capital markets and of our financial services sector generally. Maintaining the preeminence of capital markets will not be easy. It will require honest and thoughtful leadership. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I look forward to furthering the dialogue on this important issue.

Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the following remarks on competitiveness that I recently delivered to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in March be inserted into the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2007, important legislation that promotes awareness and prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome, a devastating form of child abuse that results in the severe injury, disability or death of hundreds of children each year.

Child abuse and neglect is a well-documented tragedy for some of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) almost 900,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect in 2005. More than four children die every single day as a result of abusive maltreatment in this country. Babies are particularly vulnerable; in 2005, children aged 12 months or younger accounted for nearly 42 percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities and children under age 3 accounted for almost 77 percent. Yet even these disturbing statistics may not paint an accurate picture; most experts agree that child abuse is widely under-reported.

Abusive head trauma, including Shaken Baby Syndrome, is the leading cause of death of physically abused children, in particular for infants younger than one. When a frustrated caregiver loses control and violently shakes a baby or impacts the baby's head, the trauma can kill the child or cause severe injuries, including loss of vision, loss of hearing, brain damage, paralysis, and/or seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities and creating profound grief for many families.

Far too many children have experienced the horrible devastation of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome, an average of 300 U.S. children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom two-thirds will be infants younger than one. Medical professionals believe that thousands of Shaken Baby Syndrome cases are misdiagnosed or undetected, as many children do not immediately exhibit obvious symptoms after the abuse.

Prevention programs can significantly reduce the number of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. For example, the Upstate New York SBS Prevention Project at Children's Hospital of Buffalo has used a simple video to educate new parents before they leave the hospital, reducing the number of shaken baby incidents in the area by nearly 50 percent.

In Connecticut, a multifaceted prevention approach involving hospitals, schools, childcare providers, and community-based organizations in awareness and training activities, including home visits and targeted outreach, has raised awareness and encouraged prevention across the state. Hospitals in many States educate new parents about the dangers of shaking a baby, yet it is estimated that less than 60 percent of parents of newborns receive information about the dangers of shaking a baby. Without more outreach, education and training, the risk of Shaken Baby Syndrome will persist.

With the introduction of the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2007, I hope to reduce the number of children injured or killed by abusive head trauma, and ultimately to eliminate Shaken Baby Syndrome. Our initiative provides for the creation of a public health campaign, including development of a National Action Plan to identify effective, evidence-based strategies for prevention and awareness of SBS, and establishment of a cross-disciplinary advisory council to help coordinate national efforts.

The campaign will educate the general public, parents, child care providers, health care professionals and others about the dangers of shaking, as well as healthy preventative approaches for frustrated parents and caregivers coping with a crying or fussy infant. The legislation ensures support for families who have been affected by SBS, and for families and caregivers struggling with infant crying, through a 24-hour hotline and an informational website. All of these activities are to be implemented through the coordination of existing programs and/or the establishment of new efforts, to bring together the best in current prevention, awareness and education practices to be expanded into areas in need.

Awareness is absolutely critical to prevention. Families, professionals and caregivers responsible for infants and young children and must learn about the dangers of violent shaking and abusive impacts to the head.

On behalf of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome, including Cynthia from New York, Hannah from California, Sarah from New York, Kierra from Nevada, Miranda from Pennsylvania, Taylor from Illinois, Cassandra from Arizona, Gabriela from Florida, Amber from New York, Bennett from Missouri, Jamison from Florida, Maggie from Texas, Dalton from Indiana, Stephen from Texas, Kaden from Washington, Joseph from Texas, Dawson from Pennsylvania, Macie from Minnesota, Jake from Maine, Benjamin from Michigan, Chloe from New Mexico, Madison of Oklahoma, Peanut from Texas, Nykkole from Minnesota, Gianna from Rhode Island, Brynn from Washington, Rachael from Texas, Jack from Maryland, Ryan from Virginia, David from California, Reagan from Virginia, Skipper from New York, and many other innocent lives lost or damaged, I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this legislation becomes law so that we can expand efforts to eradicate Shaken Baby Syndrome.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of groups supporting this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2007, important legislation that promotes awareness and prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome, a devastating form of child abuse that results in the severe injury, disability or death of hundreds of children each year.

Child abuse and neglect is a well-documented tragedy for some of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) almost 900,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect in 2005. More than four children die every single day as a result of abusive maltreatment in this country. Babies are particularly vulnerable; in 2005, children aged 12 months or younger accounted for nearly 42 percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities and children under age 3 accounted for almost 77 percent. Yet even these disturbing statistics may not paint an accurate picture; most experts agree that child abuse is widely under-reported.

Abusive head trauma, including Shaken Baby Syndrome, is the leading cause of death of physically abused children, in particular for infants younger than one. When a frustrated caregiver loses control and violently shakes a baby or impacts the baby's head, the trauma can kill the child or cause severe injuries, including loss of vision, loss of hearing, brain damage, paralysis, and/or seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities and creating profound grief for many families.

Far too many children have experienced the horrible devastation of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome, an average of 300 U.S. children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom two-thirds will be infants younger than one. Medical professionals believe that thousands of Shaken Baby Syndrome cases are misdiagnosed or undetected, as many children do not immediately exhibit obvious symptoms after the abuse.

Prevention programs can significantly reduce the number of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. For example, the Upstate New York SBS Prevention Project at Children's Hospital of Buffalo has used a simple video to educate new parents before they leave the hospital, reducing the number of shaken baby incidents in the area by nearly 50 percent.

In Connecticut, a multifaceted prevention approach involving hospitals, schools, childcare providers, and community-based organizations in awareness and training activities, including home visits and targeted outreach, has raised awareness and encouraged prevention across the state. Hospitals in many States educate new parents about the dangers of shaking a baby, yet it is estimated that less than 60 percent of parents of newborns receive information about the dangers of shaking a baby. Without more outreach, education and training, the risk of Shaken Baby Syndrome will persist.

With the introduction of the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2007, I hope to reduce the number of children injured or killed by abusive head trauma, and ultimately to eliminate Shaken Baby Syndrome. Our initiative provides for the creation of a public health campaign, including development of a National Action Plan to identify effective, evidence-based strategies for prevention and awareness of SBS, and establishment of a cross-disciplinary advisory council to help coordinate national efforts.

The campaign will educate the general public, parents, child care providers, health care professionals and others about the dangers of shaking, as well as healthy preventative approaches for frustrated parents and caregivers coping with a crying or fussy infant. The legislation ensures support for families who have been affected by SBS, and for families and caregivers struggling with infant crying, through a 24-hour hotline and an informational website. All of these activities are to be implemented through the coordination of existing programs and/or the establishment of new efforts, to bring together the best in current prevention, awareness and education practices to be expanded into areas in need.

Awareness is absolutely critical to prevention. Families, professionals and caregivers responsible for infants and young children and must learn about the dangers of violent shaking and abusive impacts to the head.

On behalf of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome, including Cynthia from New York, Hannah from California, Sarah from New York, Kierra from Nevada, Miranda from Pennsylvania, Taylor from Illinois, Cassandra from Arizona, Gabriela from Florida, Amber from New York, Bennett from Missouri, Jamison from Florida, Maggie from Texas, Dalton from Indiana, Stephen from Texas, Kaden from Washington, Joseph from Texas, Dawson from Pennsylvania, Macie from Minnesota, Jake from Maine, Benjamin from Michigan, Chloe from New Mexico, Madison of Oklahoma, Peanut from Texas, Nykkole from Minnesota, Gianna from Rhode Island, Brynn from Washington, Rachael from Texas, Jack from Maryland, Ryan from Virginia, David from California, Reagan from Virginia, Skipper from New York, and many other innocent lives lost or damaged, I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this legislation becomes law so that we can expand efforts to eradicate Shaken Baby Syndrome.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of groups supporting this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me briefly first thank my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, the former chairman of the Banking Committee, who will also be offering this amendment for the consideration of our colleagues.

Our markets, I think all of us know, are the most fair and efficient in the world due to many reasons, but in large part to our strong statutory and regulatory schemes in the country. The amendment we are offering recognizes the very significant role of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of improving and maintaining the integrity of the capital markets of this country, as well as the important role of small businesses in economic growth and job creation. We all remember and understand very well the debate that went on a number of years ago as a result of some of the disasters that occurred in Enron and WorldCom to make sure our public companies would be more accountable and more responsive to the concerns of the shareholders.

The SEC and the PCAOB have determined that the existing implementation of section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation has not fully achieved the intent of the statute. Last December, they proposed management guidance and revised auditing standards to more appropriately implement the statute, without having an unintended or inappropriate impact on small businesses.

The amendment I offer with my colleague from Alabama expresses the sense of the Senate that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board continue their rulemaking and finalize their ongoing rulemaking process. These two agencies are currently considering about 200 comments and letters from the public commenting on their proposed regulations dealing with section 404. The letters come from a wide variety of interested parties, offering views on the strengths of the proposals and suggestions for those improvements. The capital markets and all businesses, including small businesses, will be better served by a deliberative process of rulemaking conducted by these agencies.

I commend Chris Cox for the fine job he is doing at the SEC. They have responded very well to the concerns about the section 404 requirements, particularly the smaller public companies.

SEC Chairman Cox has recently said:

We don't need to change the law.

I am quoting him now, Mr. President.

We need to change the way the law is implemented. It is the

implementation of the law that has caused the excessive

burden, not the law itself. That is an important distinction.

He goes on to say.

I don't believe these important investor protections, which

are even now only a few years old, should be opened up to an

amendment, or that they need to be.

I agree with Chris Cox, President Bush's appointee to head up the SEC. They are doing a very fine job. I think it would be irresponsible for us at this juncture to jump in and basically reduce by 80 percent the number of companies that would have to comply with section 404. Let the SEC do their job. That is what we have asked them to do. They are responsible. They are a responsible agency in charge of looking at this. If and when they come back, and there are those of us here who feel they haven't gone far enough, that those burdens still exist, then I would welcome an opportunity to address that. But it is very premature to jump in at this juncture while the SEC is doing the job we asked them to do, acting responsibly, and performing their public functions under good leadership. It seems to me this is not a moment for us to jump into the middle of this and by a vote of small margins decide we are going to tell these agencies what to do with the professional staffs they have and the commentary process where the public has an opportunity to address and comment on the suggested rule changes that Christopher Cox and his staff at the SEC and the other commissioners are considering at this moment.

So for all of those reasons, we are offering this amendment which offers us an opportunity to express our concerns about where this is headed. Let's send a message that we are watching very carefully, we care about this, but avoid the situation of this body engaging in a regulatory process, which is properly left to the agencies charged with that responsibility. For those reasons I urge the adoption of the Dodd- Shelby amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Reed of Rhode Island, the chairman of the subcommittee, as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is all time yielded back?

Again, Chris Cox, Chairman of the SEC, pointed out he doesn't want the law changed. He wants to be able to work with the Commission and the staff to deal with these issues. The Chairman of the SEC has wide latitude within which to operate here. The statute gives broad discretion. Senator Shelby and I believe this matter ought to be left at this juncture. The Commission is relegated to do their job. Let them complete their work and make their recommendations. If we are dissatisfied, we can respond.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dodd- Shelby-Reed amendment.

Mr. President, at an appropriate moment, along with my colleague from Alabama, I will offer a motion to table the DeMint amendment. I do so respectfully of my colleague. We are just about 2 or 3 weeks away from the SEC issuing regulations regarding Sarbanes-Oxley on this 404 issue. It would be inappropriate for us to jump in and draw a conclusion as to what the SEC ought to be doing.

Chris Cox is doing a very good job at the SEC. Staff and Commissioners are doing the job we asked them to do.

To conclude the point here, this is a matter that is being well addressed by the SEC under Chris Cox. They have asked to have the appropriate time, the remaining 2 or 3 weeks, to finish their recommendations. They may very well come to the recommendation that has been offered by our colleague from South Carolina, but we ought to allow them to do their job. That is what they have been asked to do.

We are not a regulatory body. We don't have to agree with them, but we should allow them to complete their work. That is why we are offering this amendment. It is premature for us to jump in before they have completed their task.

Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 30 seconds for my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. President, I move to table the DeMint amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 917

Mr. President, yesterday marked the 20th anniversary of a dark day in my State's history: the day the L'Ambiance Plaza towers collapsed in Bridgeport and took with them the lives of 28 Connecticut construction workers.

For millions of people in Connecticut, that day's images are still fresh; time can blunt their pain, but it can never erase them. We remember the shock: 16 stories of new apartments reduced with a roar, within seconds, to ruined concrete and steel. We remember the hundreds of volunteers who combed the wrecked piles for their friends. This is how one newspaper reported their remarkable endurance: ``Physically and emotionally drained by a nightmarish task of seeking and sometimes finding the bodies of friends and loved ones, some of the volunteers have pushed themselves to exhaustion, working around the clock and then begging to go on working.'' We remember their frantic search for survivors, and the slow-dawning truth that there were none.

But above all, we remember 28 men who died too soon. They were union men from Bridgeport and Waterbury who poured concrete, laid pipe, and fixed steel. Not a single one of them went to work that morning expecting to die; but each knew the high risks of his trade, and willingly took them on to make a good living for his family.

We can clear rubble and rebuild towers, but not a single life can be replaced. If this tragedy can give us anything to be thankful for, it is the end of the dangerous lift-slab construction method that led to the collapse. We can and must demand the safest conditions for all workers, and do everything it takes to protect them. But try as we might, we will never be able to outlaw collapse, or regulate accidents, or legislate against tragedy.

We can only send our thanks to the men and women who risk themselves so we can lie down and wake up in safety and comfort. For those who died 20 years ago, we can pledge to keep their memories fresh. And today, we can repeat their names:

Michael Addona

Augustus Alman

Glenn Canning

Mario Colello

William Daddona

Francesco D'Addona

Donald Emanuel

Vincent Figliomeni

Herbert Goeldner

Terrance Gruber

John Hughes

Joesph Lowe

John Magnoli

Rocco Mancini

Richard McGill

Mario Musso

Nicholas Nardella

John Page

Guiseppe Paternostro

Antonio Perrugini

John Puskar Jr.

Anthony Rinaldi

Albert Ritz

Michael Russillo

Reginald Siewert

William Varga

Frank Visconti

Scott Ward

Mr. President, today I wish to talk about the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and this administration's inexcusable failure to do all it can to stop the violence there. We all understand the monumental challenge we face in ending the violence in Darfur, but this administration's behavior and recent statements on this issue suggest that it simply does not know when to stop talking and when to start acting. And all the while innocent people continue to needlessly die under our watch.

Last fall, the President's Special Envoy for Darfur, Andrew Natsios, announced that if the Sudanese Government did not accept a U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force by January 1, the administration would implement punitive measures as part of its Plan B.

Well here we are today. Over 100 days have passed since January 1. And what do we have to show for it? No U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force on the ground in Sudan. And no Plan B.

Meanwhile the death toll has risen. Over the course of the conflict, 200,000 people have been killed; 2.5 million displaced. Families and villages have been decimated; women and girls have been raped.

Fighting has infected Sudan's neighbors, leaving scores dead along the Sudan-Chad border. One U.N. official recently described the scene of dead bodies in the area as ``shocking and apocalyptic.''

So much death and destruction, 2\1/2\ years after this administration stated that genocide was indeed occurring in Darfur. More than 100 days after Mr. Natsios's deadline, the killings continue.

Earlier this month, Mr. Natsios testified before the Foreign Relations Committee on Darfur and Plan B. His testimony only deepened my concerns about the administration's Darfur paralysis.

When asked repeatedly by Senator Menendez to answer yes or no as to whether genocide was occurring in Darfur, he did not answer yes. Instead his response was that the violence has abated in Darfur and that the rebel groups were also engaging in killings. His answer was incredibly disturbing to me and to other members of the committee.

Now I understand Mr. Natsios's desire to convey the complexity of the situation and the complicity of various parties on the ground, but the fact is that the primary party responsible for the killings is the Sudanese Government and its Janjaweed proxies. For Mr. Natsios to be unable to state that genocide is occurring in clear terms seems to me a classic example of missing the forest for the trees. It also raises a question of credibility. After all, how can this administration stop a genocide when its special envoy won't even fully acknowledge it?

Mr. Natsios also stated that although the President is supposedly angry about the situation in Darfur and has recently proposed certain sanctions, he has acceded to a request by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to delay any implementation of Plan B for another two to four weeks to give the Secretary-General time to convince the Sudanese Government to accept a peacekeeping force.

Now 2 to 4 weeks may seem like nothing in the context of protracted and complex diplomatic negotiations, but this is no treaty that is being negotiated. There are lives at stake every day here and we just cannot afford to take a ``wait and see'' approach.

Recent reports suggest that the Sudanese Government has agreed to a hybrid force but based on its previous track record, I will believe it when I see some additional boots on the ground. In the meantime, a pause on the administration's part is simply unacceptable.

And so I believe that even as the modalities of a peacekeeping force, that may or may not materialize, are worked out, the administration must begin implementing certain elements of Plan B immediately. Not 4 weeks from now. Not 2 weeks from now. Immediately.

Select punitive measures as described by Mr. Natsios at the hearing include imposing personal sanctions on certain members of the rebel groups and the Sudanese Government; curbing the Sudanese Government's access to oil revenues; and increasing penalties on companies operating in Sudan.

There is nothing revolutionary about these measures. They were leaked to the public and have been under discussion for some weeks. The question in my mind is not so much about whether we should implement them but why haven't we already implemented them.

As chairman of the Banking Committee and a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am absolutely willing to work with the administration to put these measures into force and look forward to some clear answers from the administration on this.

Now let me be clear about what I mean in saying we should go ahead and implement elements of Plan B. I fully appreciate the sensitivities of our diplomatic efforts related to Darfur. I fully agree with the importance of working this issue through the U.N. in a multilateral manner. But if there are certain steps that the United States can take on its own account and indeed was supposed to take over 100 days ago to pressure the Sudanese Government, then what are we waiting for?

The time has come to delink certain elements of Plan B from our broader multilateral strategy to pressure Khartoum. The time has come to act where and when we can. This administration has shown no compulsion in acting unilaterally in the past. It did so by invading Iraq with disastrous consequence. Why does it continue to keep one foot on the side lines 4 years into this genocide when it not only has the ability but also the moral responsibility to act?

Moreover, we must not stop at implementing long overdue sanctions whose credibility has been called into question because they have yet to be implemented. We must also consider a more robust role for NATO forces, including their deployment to Sudan if the Sudanese Government continues to obstruct a hybrid peacekeeping force.

Even if the Sudanese Government consents to the U.N.-AU force, the United Nations may fail to muster the requisite troops within an acceptable period of time. In such a scenario, we should consider the deployment of an interim NATO force with U.S. participation. At a minimum, NATO forces, which already provide logistical support to the African Union mission, should enforce a no-fly zone in Darfur pursuant to U.N. Resolution 1591 to prevent military flights over Darfur.

Naturally, special attention will have to be paid in any operation to the security of refugee camps and aid workers but to those who say that military action will make things worse, I have only one thing to say: we are already at rock bottom.

The authorization of force is one of the most critical decisions a member of Congress has to make, especially if it entails sending our brave men and women into harm's way on the ground. U.S. participation however in any such action, even in a limited capacity, is critical to showing the world that America is not just about fighting the war against terrorism but also is willing to fight against injustice and mass murder. That we are prepared to fight for the principles of respect for human dignity and life, and not just talk about them.

In advocating certain measures outside the framework of the United Nations, I do not intend to dismiss the critical role that the U.N. and other countries can play. The fact is that the U.S. has limited leverage over Sudan and we need all the help we can get. We must work within the U.N. system, and also press other key countries that deal with Sudan such as India and China to do their part. China in particular has a crucial role to play in changing Khartoum's behavior.

But even as we assess the role and responsibilities of others, we must never forget our own. We must lead by example. Over the past few years, I have

voted for legislation sanctioning the Government of Sudan. I have delivered floor statements and attended hearings on Darfur, where witness after witness has testified to the ongoing atrocities. I have sent letters to the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs and others urging them to use their clout with Sudan.

Yet after all such actions and deliberations by members of this body and after all the punitive authorities granted to this administration, to see it temporizing and regressing to a point where we are debating whether genocide is even occurring is utterly unacceptable.

The time for action is now, not in a few weeks. We are at rock bottom and the administration needs to deliver on its threats and translate its rhetoric into action. We must do everything in our power to end the genocide in Darfur immediately.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with Senator Salazar a very important piece of legislation, ``The No Child Left Behind Reform Act.'' This legislation makes three basic changes to the No Child Left Behind Act which was signed into law in January of 2002.

Five years ago I supported the No Child Left Behind Act because I care about improving the quality of education in America for all of our children. I believed that this law would help to achieve that goal by establishing rigorous measures of student achievement, by helping teachers do a better job of instructing students, and by providing the resources desperately needed by our schools for even the most basic necessities to help put the reforms we passed into place.

Regrettably, the high hopes that I and many others had for this law have not been realized. Throughout the years, this law has been implemented by the administration in a manner that is inflexible, unreasonable and unhelpful. As a result, it has failed the teachers, the schools, and, most importantly, the students it was meant to help.

Worse still, this administration's promise of sufficient resources to implement the law is a promise that has yet to be kept. This year's budget proposal underfunds No Child Left Behind by almost $15 billion. Since passage five years ago, the administration has underfunded the law by more than $70 billion below the level promised when the President signed the Act into law.

As a result of the failures of the current administration to fulfill its commitment to our Nation's school children under this law, children and their teachers are shouldering noteworthy hardships. Additional requirements without additional funding, and little,

if any, technical assistance from the Department, have left students, teachers, administrators and parents struggling to implement mandates that are often confusing, inflexible, unrealistic and costly. With the degree of underfunding that we have seen at the Federal level, many taxpayers are simultaneously paying for their mortgage, basic health care, the rising cost of their children's tuition and the Federal share of the No Child Left Behind Act.

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, resources without reforms are a waste of money. By the same token, reforms without resources are a false promise a false promise that has left students and their teachers grappling with new burdens and little help to bear them.

The legislation I am introducing today proposes to make three changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. These changes will ease current burdens on our students, our teachers and our administrators without dismantling the fundamental underpinnings of the law.

First, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to be given credit for performing well on measures other than test scores when calculating student achievement. Test scores are an important measure of student knowledge. However, they are not the only measure. There are others. These include dropout rates, the number of students who participate in advanced placement courses, and individual student improvement over time. Unfortunately, current law does not allow schools to use these additional ways to gauge school success in a constructive manner. Additional measures can only be used to further indicate how a school is failing, not how a school is succeeding. This legislation will allow schools to earn credit for succeeding.

Second, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to target school choice and supplemental services to the students that actually demonstrate a need for them. As the current law is being implemented by the Administration, if a school is in need of improvement, it is expected to offer school choice and supplemental services to all students--even if not all students have demonstrated a need for them. That strikes me as a wasteful and imprecise way to help a school improve student performance. For that reason, this legislation will allow schools to target resources to the students that actually demonstrate that they need them. Clearly, this is the most efficient way to maximize their effect.

Finally, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act introduces a greater degree of reasonableness to the teacher certification process. As it is being implemented, the law requires teachers to be ``highly qualified'' to teach every subject that they teach. Certainly none of us disagree with this policy as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice, it is causing confusion and hardship for teachers, particularly secondary teachers and teachers in small school districts. For example, as the law is being implemented by the Administration, a high school science teacher could be required to hold degrees in biology, physics and chemistry to be considered highly qualified. In small schools where there may be only one 7th or 8th grade teacher teaching all subjects, these teachers could similarly be required to hold degrees in every subject area. Such requirements are unreasonable at a time when excellent teachers are increasingly hard to find. The legislation I introduce today will allow States to create a single assessment to cover multiple subjects for middle grade level teachers and allow states to issue a broad certification for science and social studies.

In my view, the changes I propose will provide significant assistance to schools struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind law all across America. As time marches on and more deadlines set by this law come and go including additional testing, a highly qualified teacher in every classroom and 100 percent proficiency for all students--we have a responsibility to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act in a manner that will require it to be implemented in a fair and reasonable manner. I would caution that in doing so, however, we must also preserve the basic tenets of the law--providing a high quality education for all American students and closing the achievement gap across demographic and socioeconomic lines. Again, no child should left behind--no special education student, no English language learning student, no minority student and no low-income student. I stand by this commitment.

Obviously, funding this law is beyond the scope of this bill. I would note, however, that I will continue my efforts to direct increased funds to the law. Clearly, our children deserve the resources needed to make their dreams for a better education a reality. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important reform legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with Senator Salazar a very important piece of legislation, ``The No Child Left Behind Reform Act.'' This legislation makes three basic changes to the No Child Left Behind Act which was signed into law in January of 2002.

Five years ago I supported the No Child Left Behind Act because I care about improving the quality of education in America for all of our children. I believed that this law would help to achieve that goal by establishing rigorous measures of student achievement, by helping teachers do a better job of instructing students, and by providing the resources desperately needed by our schools for even the most basic necessities to help put the reforms we passed into place.

Regrettably, the high hopes that I and many others had for this law have not been realized. Throughout the years, this law has been implemented by the administration in a manner that is inflexible, unreasonable and unhelpful. As a result, it has failed the teachers, the schools, and, most importantly, the students it was meant to help.

Worse still, this administration's promise of sufficient resources to implement the law is a promise that has yet to be kept. This year's budget proposal underfunds No Child Left Behind by almost $15 billion. Since passage five years ago, the administration has underfunded the law by more than $70 billion below the level promised when the President signed the Act into law.

As a result of the failures of the current administration to fulfill its commitment to our Nation's school children under this law, children and their teachers are shouldering noteworthy hardships. Additional requirements without additional funding, and little,

if any, technical assistance from the Department, have left students, teachers, administrators and parents struggling to implement mandates that are often confusing, inflexible, unrealistic and costly. With the degree of underfunding that we have seen at the Federal level, many taxpayers are simultaneously paying for their mortgage, basic health care, the rising cost of their children's tuition and the Federal share of the No Child Left Behind Act.

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, resources without reforms are a waste of money. By the same token, reforms without resources are a false promise a false promise that has left students and their teachers grappling with new burdens and little help to bear them.

The legislation I am introducing today proposes to make three changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. These changes will ease current burdens on our students, our teachers and our administrators without dismantling the fundamental underpinnings of the law.

First, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to be given credit for performing well on measures other than test scores when calculating student achievement. Test scores are an important measure of student knowledge. However, they are not the only measure. There are others. These include dropout rates, the number of students who participate in advanced placement courses, and individual student improvement over time. Unfortunately, current law does not allow schools to use these additional ways to gauge school success in a constructive manner. Additional measures can only be used to further indicate how a school is failing, not how a school is succeeding. This legislation will allow schools to earn credit for succeeding.

Second, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to target school choice and supplemental services to the students that actually demonstrate a need for them. As the current law is being implemented by the Administration, if a school is in need of improvement, it is expected to offer school choice and supplemental services to all students--even if not all students have demonstrated a need for them. That strikes me as a wasteful and imprecise way to help a school improve student performance. For that reason, this legislation will allow schools to target resources to the students that actually demonstrate that they need them. Clearly, this is the most efficient way to maximize their effect.

Finally, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act introduces a greater degree of reasonableness to the teacher certification process. As it is being implemented, the law requires teachers to be ``highly qualified'' to teach every subject that they teach. Certainly none of us disagree with this policy as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice, it is causing confusion and hardship for teachers, particularly secondary teachers and teachers in small school districts. For example, as the law is being implemented by the Administration, a high school science teacher could be required to hold degrees in biology, physics and chemistry to be considered highly qualified. In small schools where there may be only one 7th or 8th grade teacher teaching all subjects, these teachers could similarly be required to hold degrees in every subject area. Such requirements are unreasonable at a time when excellent teachers are increasingly hard to find. The legislation I introduce today will allow States to create a single assessment to cover multiple subjects for middle grade level teachers and allow states to issue a broad certification for science and social studies.

In my view, the changes I propose will provide significant assistance to schools struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind law all across America. As time marches on and more deadlines set by this law come and go including additional testing, a highly qualified teacher in every classroom and 100 percent proficiency for all students--we have a responsibility to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act in a manner that will require it to be implemented in a fair and reasonable manner. I would caution that in doing so, however, we must also preserve the basic tenets of the law--providing a high quality education for all American students and closing the achievement gap across demographic and socioeconomic lines. Again, no child should left behind--no special education student, no English language learning student, no minority student and no low-income student. I stand by this commitment.

Obviously, funding this law is beyond the scope of this bill. I would note, however, that I will continue my efforts to direct increased funds to the law. Clearly, our children deserve the resources needed to make their dreams for a better education a reality. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important reform legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.